Blutzeit

Found this link on how to run OS9 on intel macs: http://www.uneasysilence.com/archive/2006/08/7352/

Well, I think there are emulators out there that run OS9 (or at least OS8 im sure) on intel macs. But not sure about 3D support in this scenario though. Anyone?

Cedega is not an option for Mac, got the following reply from transgaming: This means BF is required to port CMx1 themselves using Cider, which seems unlikely. Well, well, we have to stick with BootCamp until Parallels version 3 is released.

Yup, I can confirm that no version of Wine work (Crossover 6.0, Wine 0.9.30, Darwine 0.9.12). Is there a really a Mac version of Cedega? If you visit Transgaming, they refer you to their Cider product. http://www.transgaming.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=36&meid=#8

Grass is no good as cover, try using a very-big-hill instead And get yourself a T-72 instead, and use the blade to get yourself properly dug in before the enemy hits you. I once managed to achive a perfect hull-down poition up on a hill. I must have took over a dozen hits on my tank, not getting more than a mere scratch on the paint. And I still had perfect view on the oncoming platoon of enemy tanks, picking them of one by one. [ January 25, 2007, 03:40 AM: Message edited by: Blutzeit ]

Bah, too bad, I bet my new mac would run faster in full screen software emulation mode than my old pc would. But thanks for the info anyways. A related Q: Now that it's limited to 640x480, can CMBO be made to run in a window instead of "full screen"?

I'm running CMx1 (CMBO demo so far) in Paralells on my MacBook Pro and it works pretty much ok. Only problem is that it insist on running it in a 640x480 window. It's not possible to switch this from inside the application because there's no Direct3D available. I tried to modify the preference file by replacing the numbers 640 and 480 (0280 01E0) with 1280 and 1024 (0500 0400), but I can't get it to accept that. Does anyone know if there's a workaround to get it working with a larger screen?

Speaking of joysticks, what's the best joystick for a tank sim like T-72? Seems most of them are rather flight sim oriented.

Arrgh, i've tried a number of combinations, follow road, column formation, but the supporting vehicles still behave like total noobs. I once got the tank moving across the bridge, it was almost across only to take a turn left and make a nose dive straight into the water. The strategic map command UI is a litle vague (to say the least), is the follow road icon a toggle button or command button? Should I click follow road before movement or after?

Google and ye shall find. http://www.tanksim.com/

No need to hit F7. I've noticed that your own tank crew will obey map orders, so I prefer to stay in driver mode before hittin F11 to prevent the AI driver from start moving. AFAIK there's no way give separate orders to different units. (Pity - it would be way cool to be able to command several companies of infantry and tanks Combat Mission-style in the map mode!). But anyone know how to command supporting vehicles to cross a bridge? I'm currently playing the Assault mission (awesome mission btw). When ordering my group to move accross the river, the "#@! stupid AI drivers go drown themselves instead of driving along the road across the broad and perfectly intact undefended bridge.

Q for the history buffs here. I've noticed that scenarios seems to be graded between historical and fictional. What scenarios out there fall in the more extreme historical category? I mean in terms of map accuracy, order of battle, and other fighting conditions that recreates a documented event from the war.

Well, as the edges become a problem only when the player goes there, the obvious solution is to play on a larger map. I personally prefer QBs, and can't always expect to talk sense to my map designer [doesn't even pass the turing test ]. The problems (and proposed solutions) are, what happens when the player flank or bypass the engaged enemy far enough to bump into other segments of the enemy front? I've seen bones about a new and more realistic system for victory conditions, that aim to take into account the wider scope of the war. Isn't this the way do solve the problem? E.g. your battalion has orders to attack position X. Say an extended flanking move might be tactical sound for your battalion, but as such a manouvre would interfere with the objectives of another battalion, it would reduce your larger scope victory points.

I guess the part of purpose is to abstractly simulate an extended front. But if those flank units are close enough or strong enough, why abstract them? Anyone have historical figures (distances and strengths) of what these units would have looked like in a typical CM scenario?

"I've never seen a scenario where attacking up the middle was a good idea". Isn't the edge problem intimately related to mission objectives and victory conditions. Maps are usually designed around the mission objective (doh!), and there's a limit how far the attacker can wander away from it without loosing it. I have no idea what the new victory system will look like, maybe it will partially solve this. But another idea, expanding on the Danger Zone, is to have a Twilight Zone. Units that go too far out on the flank risk loosing control, and will go missing. Either permanently, or temporaily, and in that case it may have taken damage. My thinking is, if the enemy flank units are abstracted (and "invisible"), so should their fire. Another thing, these zones should not be rectangular, but rather triangular or half-circle shaped.